61 Replies to “Prove It.”

  1. Funny thing: Trans Canada Pipeline applied to cancel the pipeline project and the State Department turned them down, insisting that the evaluation process had to continue until concluded.
    Within days, Obama announces that the pipeline application is rejected.
    The only thing missing from the announcement was a placard in the background saying:
    “This announcement brought to you by the flaming asshole.”

  2. You’re confused Kt. It’s the 97% that’s been thoroughly debunked, and from several directions.

  4. Kt – So you say. Take a revisit to the 97% and apply your same debunking rules. The 30 thousand thing was to point out the absurdity of the 97% nonsense. These numbers really lay bare the point in all this: THERE’S NO DEMOCRACY IN SCIENCE. And try again with something a little more convincing than your wheatgrass example. So, what if 19 out of 20 prescribed the wheatgrass cure? If a thousand scientists told you the world was going to end tomorrow and one said “nuts,” I’m getting a clear picture with whom you’d place your trust. This is the same specious tedium we hear over and over again. Choose your favourite hockey team by the jersey you like the best, but don’t apply that same thought process when trying to grasp what is true in science. You, Kt, are just another sad example of the gullible and deluded. Face it!

  5. Well done idiot premier Notley.By agreeing that the xl pipeline was bad you guaranteed Obama would shoot it down.Citizens of Alberta I fear your pain is only just beginning.Mulcair gloating over this on tv,Trudeau grabbing his ankles how can one not despair.

  6. “And try again with something a little more convincing than your wheatgrass example. So, what if 19 out of 20 prescribed the wheatgrass cure?”
    I agree, neither the field nor the practice of science are democracies. The phrase “the science is settled” was an unfortunate choice of words. Science, rightfully done, is always evolving, always questioning itself.
    But there IS such a thing as consensus opinion within the scientific community. Doesn’t mean that it’s literally 100% agreement, doesn’t mean that that opinion is objectively “true”, doesn’t mean that research shouldn’t continue, doesn’t mean that opinion might not yet change — even do a 180 — sometime down the road, when a sufficient body of contradictory evidence convincingly overturns the dominant theory of the day.
    But it does mean that the vast majority of empirical research to date points in one direction (that chemotherapy and radiation can be effective treatments for cancer) even if the occasional study points in another (that wheatgrass is as effective). And it does mean that, should society wish in the meantime to to take action one way or the other (to treat people with cancer), it’s prudent to follow that road supported by the bulk of research rather than the less supported road, even as research continues to examine all paths. Scientific theories aren’t overturned by the occasional study, they’re overturned by irrefutable and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
    The problem with places like SDA is that they focus EXCLUSIVELY on the occasional peer-reviewed studies that contain findings that support their “contrarian” view, while steadfastly ignoring the fact that for every one of those published papers, there are a dozen or more peer-reviewed published papers that supports the “consensus” view. It’s not the contrarian-ness of your opinion that’s the issue, it’s the willful overlooking of the full landscape, and the conviction that the science is already settled — in the opposite direction to the consensus, but settled nonetheless — that makes it fundamentally unscientific, even anti-science.

  8. Luckily for John, he doesn’t have to show his real name.
    Otherwise, imagine how embarrassing for him it would be when someone finally points out that it is NOT, like he obviously, mistakenly believes, 97% of all scientists; not even 97% of all climate scientists.
    It is 97% of the 62 scientists at the very heart of the whole “the world is ending and only we the govt can save us all through big tax increases” scam. A puerile bunch as non partisan as the Canadian Media.
    The Oregon Petition signed by 40000 scientists, 1/4 being PHDs, is obviously an illusion based on settled science,and of course superseded by the pusillanimous 62 based on Liberal math.
    Lightweight fool.

  9. “The phrase “the science is settled” was an ‘unfortunate’ choice of words.”
    Unfortunate but very deliberate. That fact is, the assertion of it being settled still resonates with the majority of your gullible ideologues. It’s unreservedly a simple-minded political statement meant to stifle dissent. There are so many other mindless buzz phrases, hype and fear mongering attached to this damaging propaganda intended to brainwash people. The most telling peculiarity was the alteration of its formal moniker from GW to “Climate Change.” One gets an immediate sense of being hoodwinked when the essential language is inexplicably revamped.
    Furthermore…
    “The problem with places like SDA is that they focus EXCLUSIVELY on the occasional peer-reviewed studies that contain findings that support their “contrarian” view”
    Right back achya.
    And…
    “while steadfastly ignoring the fact that for every one of those published papers, there are a dozen or more peer-reviewed published papers that supports the “consensus” view. ”
    Kt. Here again you are literally “weighing” the paperwork. “Consensus” is exactly the central problem that Copernicus and Galileo faced. One of the many realities of this debate are these contemplations: Climate is a chaotic and non-linear phenomena by nature, and to make any predictions about it becomes exponentially more difficult with the passage of time. A very “unfortunate” and “inconvenient” reality; the perfect issue to confuse the masses. In its most uncomplicated form, saving the world from Apocalypse appeals to a broadest section of our superficial culture, all wanting to be on the side of good, positioning themselves with the “smart” people. It’s the perfect issue.
    Couple that with the fact that CC IS merely a theory, (not “settled” as many “unfortunately” parrot) and is based on computer models, the data of which has been manipulated over and over again to conform to those models, there is plenty of reason to support the fraud aspect. Gore, Suzuki, Mann, all greedy small-minded globalists.
    And the poundage of paperwork on your side of this debate could very well trump that of the skeptics, but that is a funding issue isn’t it.
    “in the opposite direction to the consensus”
    Ahh the “C” word again.

  11. Well, I guess Oblama has a longer one than the shiny pony, but they both whipped them out this week. Pony whips back his 6 CF-18s and the golf king whips back his very long stick from AB to TX. Both announcements were timed to win in Paris as enviro-queens, signing over our nations to the UN and initiating green-shift tax-induced inflation for all Canadians and Americans for EVERYTHING. Don`t forget to re-cycle the stuff you like but can no longer afford to plug in.
    To young people: learn mechanics and agriculture so that you can make your own food, clothing and stuff in the woods. Buy: a wooded land space near water or dig a well, a gun and axe, a cow, a few pigs and chickens, a horse and cart, a quarry or build a mill. Our ancestors did well in shanties and wood or stone homes. Back to 1800. Keep away from cities, as they will be the sources of new viruses and killing sprees by frustrated and incapable new and softened Canadians who can not get onto cell phones in their cute 600 sq. ft. apartments.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation